HR.W.Dale, thank you...
First, I do think that there is a grain of truth in your reference to classes and instructors being at least generally tilted towards a "SWAT Tactical Officer" sort of thing; My experiences in or with them lack the breadth to categorically state "all", but the ones I have attended certainly had that kind of flavor. On this tangent, I publicly confess that I may not attend any more of them as the last one was disappointing in the arrogance and attitude of the instructors, and how little of it seemed to pertain to everyday life; in this sense, along these lines, I agree with both RW and Kleanbore
Edit- understanding "all" as exaggeration to illustrate a frustration we have in common?
Second, if I may, I think the bridge between RW and Kleanbore is found in parsing RW's phrase "one attack" and using the understanding (RW, please correct any misapprehension) that he is writing, with the word "attack", one single incident that may involve more than one "attacker", or, persons involved in the single incident. This is what I have most experienced, spoken about, read of, etc; in this case, perhaps we are all thinking of the same thing. What I envision is one fast incident rather than several seperate assaults where the enemy regroups to attack repeatedly (though such is possible, as indeed virtually anything is, but may justifiably removed from the parameters of this thread).
There are pertinent notes to be taken from the "JohnkSA" thread, and I want to add to his thoughts that the statistics he helpfully provides should be considered alongside those of common non-uniformed self defense cases. Let me go ahead and controversially theorize that self defense cases may involve a higher "percentage " of hits. Anecdotally, there are numerous incidents of stupendous numbers of rounds being fired by public officers with nary a hit on target, which must skew the hit/miss ratio. Anecdotally again, the majority of cases involving private citizens, in 1, or, 5, or 8/9, the hit ratio was 100%. No one is suggesting that we are assuming that all private persons will always hit, nor are we assuming that all public employees will always miss. But it is not wrong to consider that statistics compiled may have more balance on one side than another....
Edit... two local incidents, 2 rounds fired before malfunction, and 4 rounds fired before malfunction, no hits were made though the attacks were stopped. So, in these civilian cases, the miss ratio was 100%...
Golden is irrefutable when he writes that every weapon can jam, every car can break down, and every toaster can fail to toast. A "fresh from the factory" Ruger Alaskan was out of time, just in time for its inaugural competitive shoot. Fortunately for me, the paper didn't care, and Ruger was very nice about it. Murphy is out there... in fact, some others should thank me because Murphy is so busy with me, he doesn't have time to follow you...
Sidheshooter raises a valid point, and one which occupies much of my own thought process, and seems to get short shrift. Time is perhaps the most vital factor, in particular, the lack of it. One reason I so highly support training activities including the above-referenced one in which a mechanically- powered target is rushed toward the "victim" is that it reinforces the knowledge, harrowing knowledge, that one's time can be dreadfully curtailed.
BSMS hits on something we are considering; what if these attackers, in this incident, are the uncommon sort and are determined, to the point of willingly sacrificing their lives, to destroy me, this changes the equation. And, as a few of our posters have noted, those types of attackers exist (let us face the fact that the Mumbai Jihad did occur: perhaps an outlier, but, it did occur). To this situation, where the group of assailants does not care who among them, or how many among them become casualties, I question whether a deciding factor will be our ammunition reservoire (let alone my thought that such an incident involving such attackers is rare to the point of me not really considering it).
Finally, we can be comforted in knowing that "bsms" is in the main correct about criminals and crime; the vermin are more of a threat to each other (both inter and intra) than they are to us in terms of murderous intent. I have worked as a lowly security guard in many places over many years, as needs dictated, and not infrequently came across gangs (usually the lackeys and other such useful idiots/low-hanging fruit), and as they would shoot, fight, stab or slay each other (and did), I never had a problem in getting them to leave parks, ports or garages. Being a non-gang person, I was not a threat to their trade and not on their "kill list". I use this anecdote in support of the general notion bsms presents, as I understand it, please correct me if I do not...
Thank you.
